The game’s progression system relies significantly on the boxes, which can be purchased using real money to give the player equipment and “star cards” with varying levels of effectiveness for their character.

A character may, for example, get lucky and unlock an ability to cause significantly more damage. Or a player might pay and unlock relatively weak upgrades that do little to advance their character.

‘Hey dude, do this’: the last resort for female gamers escaping online abuse

Read more

The concerns about loot boxes in video games are not new.

But Battlefront 2’s release has provoked heated discussion within the gaming community, and appears to have been the last straw for gamers angry at developers’ increasing use of in-game purchases to milk money from users.

This week, email correspondence between an Australian university student and a strategic analyst with the Victorian commission for gambling and liquor regulation (VCGLR) was posted on Reddit.

The analyst confirmed the use of loot boxes was being considered at a federal and state level, and said the use of loot boxes would constitute “gambling” under Victorian law.

“The idea that (genuine) progression in a game could be reliant on the outcome of a random number generator is at odds with responsible gambling and the objectives of our acts,” the analyst wrote.

Games developers raise funds to get people with disabilities back into gaming

Read more

The regulator is still attempting to determine whether it met the definition of “unauthorised gambling” under Victorian gaming law.

The analyst said the practice tended to normalise gambling among minors, something he described as not just “morally reprehensible, but is also legally questionable”.

Others have urged for restraint in the debate.

Daniel King, a senior research fellow with the University of Adelaide’s school of psychology, has expertise in video game addiction and problem gaming.

King agreed Battlefront 2 crossed a line and had “predatory” features, but cautioned against direct comparisons between loot boxes and gambling.

He said he did not believe the use of loot boxes met the legal definition of gambling, largely because the prize had no monetary or secondary market value. There was no financial return to the player buying the loot box.

“I wouldn’t call it gambling, because it doesn’t meet the legal definition in my view,” he said.

“That being said, I still think it employs a fairly predatory or exploitative feature. And I’m not saying the company necessarily intended to make it… It didn’t come out of the blue. This has been a progression that’s happened over the last 10 years. This is essentially the next step in that progression.”